---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, January 11, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 8

                             Headlines

APOLLO GROUP: Awaits Final Approval of Securities Suit Deal
APOLLO GROUP: Still Awaits Approval of "Adoma" Suit Settlement
APOLLO GROUP: Still Awaits Order in "Teamsters" Securities Suit
APOLLO GROUP: To File Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
AT&T MOBILITY: Judge Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration

BANK OF AMERICA: Did Not Pay Final Wages to Employees, Suit Says
BORDERS GROUP: Gift-Card Holders Want to File Class Claim
EBAY CORP: Judge Allows Antitrust Class Action to Proceed
FAMILY DOLLAR: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Scott" Suit
FAMILY DOLLAR: Response in "Thomas" Suit Appeal Due This Month

GOOGLE: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Ads on Error Web Pages
GRACO CHILDREN'S: Faces Class Action Over Child Care Seats
HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action Over 30 Cents Tax Charge
LOUISIANA MUNICIPAL: Bernstein Litowitz Corrects Notice
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Sued Over Unpaid Wages in California

POLYAIR INC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Flexfoil
RESEARCH IN MOTION: Faces Class Action Over Discounted PlayBooks
SAFEWAY INC: Sued Over False Advertising on Clover Honey Product
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued Over Defective Galaxy S Smartphones
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Data Theft

SINO-FOREST: Koskie, Siskinds to Lead Investor Class Action
SUCCESSFACTORS INC: Being Sold for Too Little, Calif. Suit Says
TRICARE MGMT: Faces Class Suit Over Sept. 2011 Data Disclosure
TRIPLE EIGHT: Recalls 30,400 Bicycle Helmets for Children & Youth
VEOLIA ENVIRONNEMENT: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action

WELLPOINT INC: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Demutualization
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Sued Over Mislabeled Maytag Washing Machine


                          *********

APOLLO GROUP: Awaits Final Approval of Securities Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc. is awaiting final approval of its $145 million
settlement to resolve a securities class action lawsuit commenced
by the Policeman's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, et al.,
according to the Company's January 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
November 30, 2011.

In January 2008, a jury returned an adverse verdict against the
Company and two remaining individual co-defendants in a securities
class action lawsuit entitled, In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. CV04-2147-PHX-JAT, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona, relating to alleged false and
misleading statements in connection with the Company's failure to
publicly disclose the contents of a preliminary U.S. Department of
Education program review report.  After various post-trial
challenges, the case was returned to the trial court in March 2011
to administer the shareholder claims process.  In September 2011,
the Company entered into an agreement in principle with the
plaintiffs to settle the litigation for $145.0 million, which was
preliminarily approved by the Court on November 28, 2011.  Based
on the terms of the Court's preliminary approval, the Company
placed $145.0 million into a common fund account on December 5,
2011.  As of
November 30, 2011, the Company's remaining accrual of $161.0
million represents the $145.0 million settlement, an estimate of
the disputed amount the Company may be required to reimburse its
insurance carriers for defense costs advanced to the Company, and
estimated future legal costs.  The settlement agreement is subject
to final approval by the Court, which the Company expects to occur
during fiscal year 2012.


APOLLO GROUP: Still Awaits Approval of "Adoma" Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
On January 8, 2010, Diane Adoma filed an action against Apollo
Group, Inc. and others in United States District Court, Eastern
District of California, alleging wage and hour claims under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and California law for failure to pay
overtime and other violations, entitled Adoma et al. v. University
of Phoenix, et al, Case Number 2:10-cv-04134-JCJ.  On March 5,
2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative
to stay or transfer, the case based on the previously filed Sabol
and Juric actions.  On May 3, 2010, the Court denied the motion to
dismiss and/or transfer.  On April 12, 2010, plaintiff filed her
motion for conditional collective action certification.  The Court
denied class certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
transferred these claims to the District Court in Pennsylvania.
On August 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court in California granted
plaintiff's motion for class action certification of the
California claims.  On September 14, 2010, the Company filed a
petition for permission to appeal the class certification order
with the Ninth Circuit, which was denied on November 3, 2010.
There are approximately 1,500 current and former employees in the
class.

In August 2011, the parties agreed to settle the case for an
immaterial amount, which was accrued in the Company's financial
statements during fiscal year 2011.  The agreement, in which the
Company does not admit any liability, is subject to pending
approval by the Court.

No further updates were reported in the Company's January 5, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended November 30, 2011.


APOLLO GROUP: Still Awaits Order in "Teamsters" Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc. is still awaiting a court decision on
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of their
securities class action lawsuit filed in Arizona, according to the
Company's January 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
November 30, 2011.

On November 2, 2006, the Teamsters Local 617 Pension and Welfare
Funds filed a class action complaint purporting to represent a
class of shareholders who purchased the Company's stock between
November 28, 2001, and October 18, 2006.  The complaint, filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, is entitled
Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc.
et al., Case Number 06-cv-02674-RCB, and alleges that the Company
and certain of its current and former directors and officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by purportedly
making misrepresentations concerning the Company's stock option
granting policies and practices and related accounting.  The
defendants are Apollo Group, Inc., J. Jorge Klor de Alva, Daniel
E. Bachus, John M. Blair, Dino J. DeConcini, Kenda B. Gonzales,
Hedy F. Govenar, Brian E. Mueller, Todd S. Nelson, Laura Palmer
Noone, John R. Norton III, John G. Sperling and Peter V. Sperling.
On September 11, 2007, the Court appointed The Pension Trust Fund
for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff.  Lead plaintiff filed
an amended complaint on November 23, 2007, asserting the same
legal claims as the original complaint and adding claims for
violations of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and allegations of breach of fiduciary duties and civil
conspiracy.

On January 22, 2008, all defendants filed motions to dismiss.  On
March 31, 2009, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice as to
Daniel Bachus, Hedy Govenar, Brian E. Mueller, Dino J. DeConcini,
and Laura Palmer Noone.  The Court also dismissed the case as to
John Sperling and Peter Sperling, but granted plaintiffs leave to
file an amended complaint against them.  Finally, the Court
dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims concerning misconduct before
November 2001 and all of the state law claims for conspiracy and
breach of fiduciary duty.  On April 30, 2009, plaintiffs filed
their Second Amended Complaint, which alleges similar claims for
alleged securities fraud against the same defendants.  On
June 15, 2009, all defendants filed another motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint.  On February 22, 2010, the Court
partially granted the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, but
withheld a final determination on the individual defendants
pending the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint.

On March 31, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona dismissed the case with prejudice and entered judgment in
the Company's favor.  Plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of this ruling and, if that is not successful,
plaintiffs have indicated they will appeal the ruling.  The
Company says the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at
this point.  Based on the information available to it at present,
the Company says it cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for
this action and, accordingly, it has not accrued any liability
associated with this action.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.


APOLLO GROUP: To File Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc. was scheduled to file a motion to dismiss a
consolidated securities class action on January 9, 2012, according
to the Company's January 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
November 30, 2011.

On August 13, 2010, a securities class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona by Douglas
N. Gaer naming the Company, John G. Sperling, Gregory W. Cappelli,
Charles B. Edelstein, Joseph L. D'Amico, Brian L. Swartz and
Gregory J. Iverson as defendants for allegedly making false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business practices
and prospects for growth.  That complaint asserted a putative
class period stemming from December 7, 2009, to
August 3, 2010.  A substantially similar complaint was also filed
in the same Court by John T. Fitch on September 23, 2010, making
similar allegations against the same defendants for the same
purported class period.  Finally, on October 4, 2010, another
purported securities class action complaint was filed in the same
Court by Robert Roth against the same defendants as well as Brian
Mueller, Terri C. Bishop and Peter V. Sperling based upon the same
general set of allegations, but with a defined class period of
February 12, 2007, to August 3, 2010.  The complaints allege
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  On
October 15, 2010, three additional parties filed motions to
consolidate the related actions and be appointed the lead
plaintiff.

On November 23, 2010, the Fitch and Roth actions were consolidated
with Gaer and the Court appointed the "Apollo Institutional
Investors Group" consisting of the Oregon Public Employees
Retirement Fund, the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme, and Amalgamated
Bank as lead plaintiffs.  The case is now entitled, In re Apollo
Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case Number CV-10-1735-
PHX-JAT.  On February 18, 2011, the lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint naming Apollo, John G. Sperling, Peter V.
Sperling, Joseph L. D'Amico, Gregory W. Cappelli, Charles B.
Edelstein, Brian L. Swartz, Brian E. Mueller, Gregory J. Iverson,
and William J. Pepicello as defendants.  The consolidated
complaint asserts a putative class period of May 21, 2007, to
October 13, 2010.  On April 19, 2011, the Company filed a motion
to dismiss and oral argument on the motion was held before the
Court on October 17, 2011.  On October 27, 2011, the Court granted
the Company's motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to
amend.  On December 6, 2011, the lead plaintiffs filed an Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which alleges similar claims
against the same defendants.  The Company anticipated filing a
motion to dismiss that complaint by January 9, 2012.

Discovery in this case has not yet begun.  The Company anticipates
that the plaintiffs will seek substantial damages, including
damages representing the aggregate investment losses attributable
to the alleged false and misleading statements by all shareholders
who purchased shares during the 29-month putative class period and
still held those shares on October 13, 2010.  Because of the many
questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this
legal proceeding is uncertain at this point.  Based on information
available to the Company at present, it cannot reasonably estimate
a range of loss for this action and, accordingly, the Company has
not accrued any liability associated with this action.


AT&T MOBILITY: Judge Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a class of
customers who said AT&T aggressively markets "data hungry devices"
despite "knowing their network infrastructure could not possibly
accommodate the demands increased usage would cause" must
arbitrate their claims, a federal judge ruled.

Four customers sued AT&T in February 2011 for problems with the
company's smart phones, including "slow or nonfunctional Internet
connectivity, innumerable dropped calls, and the inability to
place or receive calls," according to the amended complaint.

They said the shoddy service "is largely due to AT&T's inability
to meet the demands placed on their network because of
oversubscription."

"In other words, AT&T's service was not fit for the purpose for
which wireless phone service is generally used."

The plaintiffs also said they were "held hostage by the costs
associated with changing providers."

But U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer agreed with AT&T that its
customers are contractually obligated to arbitrate their claims.

Judge Breyer granted AT&T's motion to compel arbitration because
the plaintiffs could not prove that the arbitration agreement
violated state or federal law.

"The first page of AT&T's terms of service advises consumers that
their agreements require the use of individual arbitration to
resolve disputes, 'rather than jury trials or class actions,'"
Judge Breyer wrote.  "It explains clearly and in boldface type:
'arbitration under this Agreement will take place on an individual
basis; class arbitrations and class actions are not permitted,'"
the judge continued, quoting the company's service agreement.

A copy of the Order Granting Motion to Compel Arbitration in Blau,
et al. v. AT&T Mobility, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00541 (N.D.
Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/06/ATTOrder.pdf

The Plaintiffs were represented by:

          Lenza H. McElrath III, Esq.
          3637 18th St. #2
          San Francisco, CA 94110
          Telephone: (216) 920-1997
          Facsimile: (510) 550-7820
          E-mail: lenza@lenzalaw.com

Mr. McElrath also represented himself in the case.


BANK OF AMERICA: Did Not Pay Final Wages to Employees, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Robert Labriola, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated v. Bank of America, National Association, and Does 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. CGC-11-516348, (Calif. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., December 5, 2011) is brought on behalf of all
financial advisors in California, who quit or were terminated from
their employment with BofA within the three years preceding the
filing of the complaint and were not paid their final commission
wages within the period provided for in the Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that BofA should have provided final
commission wages to departed employees within the time allowed by
law, but failed to do so and instead systematically paid employees
only on the next regular commission paydate, which was not until
the second week of the following month.  The Plaintiff also
contends that the Defendants failed to provide the waiting time
penalties provided for in the Labor Code.

Mr. LaBriola was employed as a financial advisor by Merrill Lynch
& Co., Inc. when BofA's parent corporation, Bank of America
Corporation, purchased Merrill Lynch.  On January 1, 2009, Bank of
America Corporation merged Merrill Lynch's operations with those
of BofA.  Mr. LaBriola continued in his position as a financial
advisor with BofA after the purchase.

BofA is a financial services company licensed to operate in
California.  BofA offers its financial advisory services
throughout California.  The true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.

BofA removed the lawsuit on January 5, 2012, from the Superior
Court of the state of California, County of San Francisco, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The Company argues that the removal is proper because
the aggregate amount of the class members' claims exceeds $5
million.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:12-cv-00079
to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Quadra, Esq.
          Rebecca M. Coll, Esq.
          CALVO FISHER & JACOB LLP
          One Lombard Street, Second Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 374-8370
          Facsimile: (415) 374-8373
          E-mail: jquadra@calvofisher.com
                  rcoll@calvofisher.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew C. Kane, Esq.
          Michael D. Mandel, Esq.
          Sylvia J. Kim, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 315-8200
          Facsimile: (310) 315-8210
          E-Mail: mkane@mcguirewoods.com
                  mmandel@mcguirewoods.com
                  skim@mcguirewoods.com


BORDERS GROUP: Gift-Card Holders Want to File Class Claim
---------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Palank, writing for Dow Jones' Daily Bankruptcy Review,
reports that attorneys representing at least two holders of $125
gift-card from Borders Group who tried to redeem the cards for
purchases during the holidays but were denied, want to form a
class of gift-card holders.  According to the report, the
attorneys said Borders neglected to tell the gift-card holders
that they'd need to file a claim against the company to get their
money back.  The attorneys are urging the bankruptcy judge to let
the gift-card holders unite and bring their claims now despite
that the June 1, 2011 deadline to bring claims has long passed.

The report notes Borders publicized the claim deadline in the New
York Times and published other case updates in The Wall Street
Journal and USA Today.  However, the attorneys argued that "The
New York Times is approximately $312/year, The Wall Street Journal
$152/year and USA Today $195/year . . .  and [t]he average
customer does not subscribe to these papers and thus, is not
likely to see these notices.  To expect a gift-card holder or
proposed class member to review these papers daily for bar date
notices and pay hundreds of dollars a year defies logic."  The
lawyers also contended that, "[a]lthough the New York Times may be
required reading for residents of Manhattan, it is not the primary
source of news for residents of most parts of the country."

The report notes Borders wrote off as cash $156.2 million in
unredeemed gift cards.

DBR says Borders attorney Andrew K. Glenn, Esq., of Kasowitz,
Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP didn't return a call seeking comment
Thursday afternoon.

                      About Borders Group

Borders Group operated book, music and movie superstores and mall
based bookstores under the Borders, Waldenbooks, Borders Express
and Borders Outlet names, as well as Borders-branded airport
stores in the United States.  At Jan. 29, 2011, the Company
operated 639 stores in the United States and 3 in Puerto Rico.
The Company also operated a proprietary e-commerce Web site --
http://www.Borders.com/-- launched in May 2008, which included
both in-store and online e-commerce components.  As of Feb. 11,
2011, Borders employed a total of 6,100 full-time employees,
11,400 part-time employees, and roughly 600 contingent employees.

Borders Group Inc. and its affiliates filed for Chapter 11
protection (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. Lead Case No. 11-10614) in
Manhattan on Feb. 16, 2011.

David M. Friedman, Esq., David S. Rosner, Esq., Andrew K. Glenn,
Esq., and Jeffrey R. Gleit, Esq., at Kasowitz, Benson, Torres &
Friedman LLP, in New York, serve as counsel to the Debtors.
Jefferies & Company's Inc. is the financial advisor.  DJM Property
Management is the lease and real estate services provider.  AP
Services LLC is the interim management and restructuring services
provider.  The Garden City Group, Inc., is the claims and notice
agent.

Attorneys at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, and Riemer & Braunstein
LLP, serve as counsel to the DIP Agents.

Lowenstein Sandler represents the official unsecured creditors
committee for Borders Group.  Bruce S. Nathan and Bruce Buechler,
members of Lowenstein Sandlers' Bankruptcy, Financial
Reorganization & Creditors' Rights Group, are leading the team.

The Debtor disclosed $1.28 billion in assets and $1.29 billion in
liabilities as of Dec. 25, 2010.

Borders is completing going-out-of-business sales that
began at all of its remaining locations in July. The creditors?
committee said before the liquidation began that Borders
expected to generate $252 million to $284 million in cash from
the sales. Borders is selling store leases separately. Borders
selected proposals by Hilco and Gordon Brothers to conduct going
out of business sales for all stores after no going concern offers
of higher value were submitted by the deadline.

The Court confirmed the First Amended Joint Plan of Liquidation
filed by the Debtors and the Official Committee of Unsecured
Creditors at a Dec. 20, 2011 hearing.


EBAY CORP: Judge Allows Antitrust Class Action to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marshall at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge refused to dismiss most of a class action that claims eBay
monopolized the market for payment systems used in online
auctions.

The auction site allegedly raised fees and shut out payment-system
competitors after acquiring PayPal in 2002.

The class claimed eBay has made PayPal the only viable option for
sellers, and therefore sellers have to pay fees to eBay both for
listing and selling their products and for using PayPal.

EBay's accepted payment policy prohibits sellers from asking
buyers to contact them for additional payment methods or from
asking buyers to use a method a seller did not include in their
listing, according to the class.  If it believes a seller violates
the policy, eBay removes seller's listings.

EBay claimed that the statute of limitations barred accusations by
lead plaintiff Charlotte Smith and a class of others who sell
products on eBay.

If the court found that the clock began when eBay acquired PayPal
in 2002, it would have expired in 2006 under the four-year statute
of limitations for private antitrust claims.

U.S. District Judge James White disagreed in an unpublished
decision on Jan. 5 that the class tied its claims of attempted and
actual monopolization to eBay's acquisition of PayPal.

The class instead tied the claims to the continued modification of
eBay's accepted payment policy.  This included prohibiting
payments through Google Checkout in 2006; doubling PayPal Buyer
Protection in 2007, which allegedly eliminated buyer protection
for non-PayPal transactions; requiring sellers to accept
electronic payments in 2008.

Since the changes allegedly "inflicted new and accumulating harm"
on the class, eBay enforced an alleged tying agreement within the
limitations periods.

The sellers also argued that there is little motivation for other
online-payment systems to enter the market since sellers can
accept payment only via PayPal, and those that do are foreclosed
from offering their services directly to the class at a lower,
market-driven cost.

Judge White said, however, that these "conclusory allegations are
not supported by facts alleged elsewhere" in the first amended
complaint.

He, nevertheless, gave the class leave to amend allegations that
the alleged tying between eBay and PayPal caused harm to
competitors.

The class alleges that the relevant market is online auctions and
that the tied product is online payment services.  Judge White
said the relevant market might be sustainable, rejecting eBay's
claim that the market is "impermissibly narrow."

Noting that the class identified specific fees at issue, Judge
White also rejected eBay's motion to toss antitrust injury claims,
opining that the arguments are better addressed by summary-
judgment motions.

The class also has leave to amend claims that eBay improperly
collects a shipping fee when buyers and sellers actually handle
shipping and related fees.  Judge White dismissed the claims on
Jan. 5, saying the class did not show lack of consent to pay eBay
a "final value fee," of which the shipping charges are a part.

A copy of the Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint; Granting Leave to
Amend; Continuing Case Management Conference in Smith, et al. v.
eBay Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-03825 (N.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/06/ebay.pdf


FAMILY DOLLAR: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Scott" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit commenced by Scott, et
al., according to the Company's January 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended November 26, 2011.

On October 14, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court in Birmingham, Alabama, captioned Scott, et al. v. Family
Dollar Stores, Inc., alleging discriminatory pay practices with
respect to the Company's female Store Managers.  This case was
pled as a putative class action or collective action under
applicable statutes on behalf of all Family Dollar female Store
Managers.  The plaintiffs seek recovery of compensatory and
punitive money damages, recovery of attorneys' fees and equitable
relief.  The case has been transferred to the N.C. Federal Court.
Presently, there are 48 named plaintiffs in the Scott case, with
no additional opt-ins.  In response to the recent United States
Supreme Court decision of Dukes v. Walmart, on September 19, 2011,
the Company filed a motion to dismiss seeking to strike the
plaintiffs' class claims.  The plaintiffs' responded to this
motion in October 2011.  The plaintiffs also filed a motion to
amend their Complaint in response to the motion to dismiss on
October 28, 2011.  The N.C. Federal Court heard arguments on both
motions on November 22, 2011.  A ruling has not yet been issued on
the motions.

At this time, the Company says it is not possible to predict
whether the N.C. Federal Court ultimately will permit the Scott
action to proceed collectively under the Equal Pay Act or as a
class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.  Although the
Company intends to vigorously defend the action, no assurances can
be given that the Company will be successful in the defense on the
merits or otherwise.  Similarly, at this time, the Company cannot
estimate either the size of any potential class or the value of
the claims raised in this action.  For these reasons, the Company
is unable to estimate any potential loss or range of loss.  The
Company has tendered the matter to its Employment Practices
Liability Insurance ("EPLI") carrier for coverage under its EPLI
policy.  At this time, the Company expects that the EPLI carrier
will participate in any resolution of some or all of the
plaintiffs' claims.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Response in "Thomas" Suit Appeal Due This Month
--------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc.'s response to the appeal from the order
granting its summary judgment motion in the lawsuit commenced by
Warren Thomas is due this month, according to the Company's
January 5, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
November 26, 2011.

Since 2004, certain individuals who held the position of Store
Manager for the Company have filed lawsuits alleging that the
Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and/or
similar state laws, by classifying them as "exempt" employees who
are not entitled to overtime compensation.  The majority of the
complaints in each action also request that the cases proceed as
collective actions under the FLSA or as class actions under state
laws and request recovery of overtime pay, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and court costs.  The Company currently has 22
such cases pending against it.

Grace v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and Ward v. Family Dollar
Stores, Inc. are both pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division (the "N.C.
Federal Court").  In those cases, the N.C. Federal Court has
returned orders finding that the plaintiffs were not similarly
situated and, therefore, that neither nationwide notice nor
collective treatment under the FLSA is appropriate.  Hence, the
Grace and Ward cases proceeded as 42 individual plaintiff cases.

On July 9, 2009, the N.C. Federal Court granted summary judgment
against Irene Grace on the merits of her misclassification claim
under the FLSA.  The plaintiffs appealed certain rulings of the
N.C. Federal Court to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit including the court's summary judgment order
against Irene Grace.  On March 22, 2011, the Fourth Circuit
affirmed the district court's decision finding that Ms. Grace was
exempt from overtime compensation under the FLSA.  The Fourth
Circuit did not address the class certification issue in the Grace
and Ward cases since Ms. Grace's lawsuit would be dismissed on the
merits.

The Company has filed summary judgment motions related to each of
the remaining 41 plaintiffs in the Grace and Ward cases.  The
court has granted 13 of those summary judgment motions.  Most
recently, on December 2, 2011, the court granted summary judgment
against plaintiff, Eddie Mae Smith.

Plaintiffs have filed notices of appeals in 11 cases, which are
Gersch v. Family Dollar, Cathey, et al. v. Family Dollar, Warren
Thomas v. Family Dollar, Dawson v. Family Dollar, Hare v. Family
Dollar, Villanueva v. Family Dollar, Asher v. Family Dollar, Dance
v. Family Dollar, Baker v. Family Dollar, Garza v. Family Dollar,
and Wilson v. Family Dollar. The Fourth Circuit consolidated the
Warren Thomas and the Dawson appeals.  On November 23, 2011, the
Warren Thomas appeal was filed.  However, plaintiffs decided not
to proceed with the Dawson appeal and formally dismissed it on
December 9, 2011.  Thus, only 10 appeals remain.  The Company's
response to the Warren Thomas appeal is due in January 2012.

Including Grace and Ward, a total of 16 class and/or collective or
single plaintiff misclassification cases are now pending before
the N.C. Federal Court since Hamilton v. Family Dollar Stores of
Florida, Inc., Friedman v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., et al. were
dismissed on July 26, 2011, and September 23, 2011, respectively.
Additionally, in Itterly v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., the N.C.
Federal Court has dismissed the named plaintiff's and opt-ins'
collective action and individual claims under the FLSA.  The state
law class and individual claims under the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act remain in the Itterly litigation.  The named plaintiff
and opt-in intervenors are seeking to have the case transferred
back to the district court in Pennsylvania.  The Company has
opposed the transfer.

Presently, there are a total of 28 named plaintiffs and
intervenors in the Grace and Ward cases, and 56 named plaintiffs
and/or opt-ins in the remaining cases.  All putative class action
cases based on state law have been dismissed, other than in the
Itterly case.  The FLSA collective claims remain only in the
Latner v. Family Dollar, Ward v. Family Dollar, Scott v. Family
Dollar, Jackson v. Family Dollar, McCarty v. Family Dollar, Moody
v. Family Dollar, Slater v. Family Dollar and Magwood v. Family
Dollar cases.

The Company has been sued in seven additional class action
lawsuits alleging that Store Managers should be non-exempt
employees under various state laws.  The plaintiffs in these cases
seek recovery of overtime pay, liquidated damages, and attorneys'
fees and court costs.  Twila Walters et. al. v. Family Dollar
Stores of Missouri, Inc., alleging violations of the Missouri
Minimum Wage Law, was originally filed on January 26, 2010, and is
pending in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri (the
"Circuit Court").  On May 10, 2011, the Circuit Court certified
the class under the Missouri Minimum Wage Law and common law.  On
May 20, 2011, the Company petitioned the Appellate Court for an
interlocutory appeal of the Circuit Court's decision certifying
the class.  The Appellate Court denied that petition on June 10,
2011.  The Company filed a writ of prohibition with the Missouri
Supreme Court on July 1, 2011.  On October 4, 2011, the Missouri
Supreme Court denied the Company's writ of prohibition and vacated
the stay of the litigation.  Hegab v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc.,
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on March 3, 2011.  Plaintiff seeks recovery for himself
and allegedly similarly situated Store Managers under New Jersey
law.  The Company has sought a stay of the Hegab proceedings,
which was denied.  The parties are now engaged in class discovery
in this matter.  Barker v. Family Dollar, Inc., alleging
violations of the Kentucky Wages and Hours Law, was filed in
Circuit Court in Jefferson County, Kentucky on February 17, 2010,
and removed to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky.  On March 11, 2011, the district court
denied the Company's partial motion to dismiss the overtime claim
under Kentucky law and requested more discovery on that claim.
The parties conducted pre-certification discovery through December
2011.  Youngblood, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., Family
Dollar, Inc., Family Dollar Stores of New York, Inc. et al., was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on April 2, 2009.  Rancharan v. Family Dollar
Stores, Inc., was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, Queens County, on March 4, 2009, was removed to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on May
6, 2009, and was subsequently transferred to the Southern District
of New York and has been consolidated with Youngblood.  On October
4, 2011, the New York District Court certified the class.  The
parties are engaging in merits discovery through February 2012.
Cook, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores of Connecticut, Inc., was
filed in the Superior Court State of Connecticut on October 5,
2011, seeking unpaid overtime for a class of current and former
Connecticut Store Managers for alleged violations of the
Connecticut Minimum Wage Act.  Samuel, et al v. Family Dollar
Stores of Florida, Inc., was filed in Broward County Circuit Court
of Florida on November 25, 2011, seeking unpaid overtime for
"similarly situated employees" under the FLSA.  This matter was
removed to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on December 1, 2011.  The Company has also
moved to have this matter transferred to the multidistrict
litigation ("MDL") in North Carolina, which was conditionally
granted on December 7, 2011.  The plaintiffs moved to vacate the
conditional transfer order on December 28, 2011, and Family
Dollar's response in opposition is due January 18, 2012.

In general, the Company continues to believe that its Store
Managers are "exempt" employees under the FLSA and have been and
are being properly compensated under both federal and state laws.
The Company further believes that these actions are not
appropriate for collective or class action treatment.  The Company
intends to vigorously defend the claims in these actions.  While
the N.C. Federal Court has previously found that the Grace and
Ward actions are not appropriate for collective action treatment,
at this time it is not possible to predict whether one or more of
the remaining MDL cases may be permitted to proceed collectively
on a nationwide or other basis.  No assurances can be given that
the Company will be successful in the defense of these actions, on
the merits or otherwise.  The Company cannot reasonably estimate
the possible loss or range of loss that may result from these
actions.

If at some point in the future the Company determines that a
reclassification of some or all of its Store Managers as non-
exempt employees under the FLSA is required, such action could
have a material effect on the Company's financial position,
liquidity or results of operation.  At this time, the Company
cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that
may result from these actions.


GOOGLE: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Ads on Error Web Pages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Roberts, writing for paidContent.org, reports that a federal
judge in California turned down a would-be class action lawsuit
that sought millions of dollars in refunds for companies whose ads
appeared on parked or error web pages.

In a ruling on Jan. 5, U.S. District Judge Edward Davila said he
would not allow the class action to go forward because it was more
appropriate for companies who had bought the ads to show any
alleged harm on an individual basis.

The case, which was filed in 2008, said Google's ad-selling
practices were unfair and deceptive under California law.  The ads
in question were those which appeared on "parked domains" which
are registered but undeveloped Web sites, and on placeholder pages
that appeared instead of error messages.

The plaintiffs claimed that these sites left a negative impression
and that Google had failed to inform them their ads would appear
there.  The search giant replied that a clicked-through ad on
these sites was equally valuable and that its policies disclosed
where the ads would appear.

Part of Google's ad business is a large network on which it helps
other web sites host ads.

The company has been dinged by major advertising-related class
actions in the past.  In 2006, it agreed to a $60 million
settlement to compensate ad buyers who had been harmed when
malicious third parties clicked on their ad in bad faith, a
practice known as click-fraud.  And in 2009, Google paid $20
million to settle a suit that alleged it over-charged for ads.
The company denied it was at fault but it said it was easier to
pay and move forward.

The company is also enmeshed in a series of lawsuits over whether
it is legal for one company to buy another firm's trademark for
advertising purposes.  So far, courts have sided with Google.

A Google spokeswoman said the company was pleased with last week's
ruling.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs declined to comment.


GRACO CHILDREN'S: Faces Class Action Over Child Care Seats
----------------------------------------------------------
Autos.ca reports that a class action lawsuit has been launched
against Graco Children's Products regarding its TurboBooster child
car seats.  Production of the seats began around June 2002 and
millions were sold to North American consumers, with many still in
use today.

The claim, launched by law firm Siskinds, alleges that
TurboBooster seats manufactured prior to late 2007 or early 2008
have a common design defect that can result in the armrests
changing position and/or completing separating from the seat's
base in the event of a crash, resulting in a serious safety risk
to the child in it.

"We believe that through this lawsuit, the defendants will be
required to account for the defect, explain to Canadian consumers
what they knew about the risks associated with using the
TurboBooster child car seats manufactured prior to the defect
being corrected when they first became aware of those risks, and
why nothing was done to correct the defect in the older models,"
said Matthew Baer -- matt.baer@siskinds.com -- a lawyer with
Siskinds.  "In this case, as with all of these types of cases, we
are concerned about the safety of the product which, in this case,
is specifically being used by Canadian children as a safety
device."

Canadians who have TurboBooster child car seats manufactured prior
to 2008 are encouraged to visit Siskinds or to call 1-800-461-6166
extension 2381 for more information.  Quebec residents can contact
Nathalie Boulay at 418-694-2009.


HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action Over 30 Cents Tax Charge
-------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that the Home Depot
overcharges taxes for coupon-using customers, a class action
claims in City Court.

Sandra Barber says Missouri law allows businesses to tax only the
sale price paid by the final purchaser, and does not apply to any
discounts negotiated between manufacturers, retailers and
wholesalers.

Ms. Barber claims that she twice bought four Mr. Clean Magic
Erasers for $1 each.  Each time she had four coupons for $1 off,
bringing her total purchase price to zero, but she was charged 30
cents in taxes both times.

"Coupon sales qualify as 'pricing discounts,'" her complaint
states.  "Sales tax should not be collected by retailers for the
amount discounted by the coupon and not paid by the purchaser.

"Home Depot collects sales tax on retail sales that involve
coupons, imposing a sales tax against the full retail price of the
item purchased, even when the price paid by the final purchaser
may be substantially less than the full retail price."

The class consists of all people who bought items at a Home Depot
in Missouri since Aug. 28, 2007, who used a coupon or other
discounts, but were charged tax on the item's full purchase
amount.

Ms. Barber seeks an injunction, disgorgement and damages.

A copy of the Complaint in Barber v. The Home Depot USA, Inc.,
Case No. 1222-CC00272 (Mo. Cir. Ct., City of St. Louis), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/06/HomeDepotCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey J. Lowe, Esq.
          CAREY DANIS & LOWE
          8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 725-7700
          Facsimile: (314) 678-3401
          E-mail: jlowe@careydanis.com

               - and -

          Alan Himmelfarb, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF HIMMELFARB
          80 W. Sierra Madre Blvd. #304
          Sierra Madre, CA 91024
          Telephone: (626) 325-3104
          E-mail: consumerlaw1@earthlink.net
  

LOUISIANA MUNICIPAL: Bernstein Litowitz Corrects Notice
-------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP on Jan. 6 issued a
corrected notice to clarify the class period in the securities
class action lawsuit it filed on behalf of its client the
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System
("LAMPERS") against The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation.  That
action, which is captioned Louisiana Municipal Police Employees'
Retirement System v. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, No.
11-cv-9175 (S.D.N.Y.), asserts claims against BNY Mellon and
certain of its senior executives under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 on behalf of investors in BNY Mellon common stock during
the period of February 28, 2008 through August 11, 2011.  A
previous notice issued by BLB&G on December 15, 2011 incorrectly
stated that the class period began on February 21, 2008.  The
action also asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933
against BNY Mellon, certain of its senior officers and directors,
as well as the underwriters of two public offerings of BNY Mellon
common stock conducted in May 2009 and June 2010 on behalf of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired BNY Mellon common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offerings.

As set forth in the notice issued by BLB&G on December 15, 2011,
the action alleges that during the Class Period, BNY Mellon and
certain of its senior executives violated provisions of the
Exchange Act by issuing false and misleading press releases,
financial statements, filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and statements during investor conference calls.  As
alleged in the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, BNY Mellon
and certain of its senior executives misled investors regarding
the Company's financial condition by reporting inflated revenue
and concealing risks attributable to BNY Mellon's participation in
a scheme to fraudulently overcharge its custodial clients for
foreign currency ("FX") trades.  The Complaint also seeks remedies
under the Securities Act against BNY Mellon, certain of the
Company's senior officers and directors, and certain underwriters
for material misstatements and omissions contained in materials
issued in connection with the Offerings.

Beginning in January 2011, a series of corrective disclosures
began to reveal the truth concerning BNY Mellon's FX trading
scheme, the profits derived from that misconduct and the Company's
true financial condition and business prospects.  Specifically,
disclosures concerning the unsealing of several whistleblower
lawsuits against BNY Mellon, including those in Virginia and
Florida, the intervention in those suits by the attorneys general
of Florida and Virginia, as well as a series of news articles
examining the Company's improper FX trading practices, caused the
price of BNY Mellon stock to drop precipitously.  As alleged in
the Complaint, one news article published in The Wall Street
Journal on August 12, 2011 quoted internal Company emails from a
BNY Mellon executive that admitted that providing "full
transparency" into the Company's FX trading practices to its
custodial clients would reduce BNY Mellon's profit margins
"dramatically."  As a result of these disclosures, BNY Mellon's
shares fell from $31.95 per share on January 21, 2011 to a closing
price of $19.99 per share on August 12, 2011 -- a decline of over
37% that represents a market capitalization loss of over $14
billion.  Since the end of the Class Period, both the New York
Attorney General and the U.S. Department of Justice filed actions
against BNY Mellon alleging claims arising out of the Company's FX
trading practices, which are also reportedly the subject of an
investigation by the SEC.

This corrected notice does not alter the deadline for filing a
motion to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in this action that
was triggered by the notice published by BLB&G on December 15,
2011.  If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the Class in
this action, you must file a motion with the Court no later than
February 13, 2012, which is 60 days after December 15, 2011.  Any
member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain a member of the proposed class.

LAMPERS is represented by BLB&G, a firm of over 50 attorneys with
offices in New York, California, Illinois, and Louisiana.  If you
wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this
notice or your rights or interests, please contact:

          Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1285 Avenue of Americas, 38th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 554-1282
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: jerry@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Avi Josefson, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1285 Avenue of Americas, 38th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 554-1493
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: avi@blbglaw.com

Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G -- http://www.blbglaw.com--
specializes in securities fraud, corporate governance,
shareholders' rights, employment discrimination and civil rights
litigation, among other practice areas, BLB&G prosecutes class and
private actions on behalf of institutional and individual clients
worldwide.


NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Sued Over Unpaid Wages in California
---------------------------------------------------------
David Giannini, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated and In the Interest of the General Public of the State of
California v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., a Wisconsin
Corporation doing business in California, Northwestern Mutual -
San Francisco Bay Area Group, Inc., a California Corporation, John
Goodenough, an individual, and Does 1-20, inclusive, Case No. CGC-
11-516348, (Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., December 5,
2011) seeks to recover unpaid wages, general damages, statutory
damages, punitive damages, penalties, equitable relief, and
attorney's fees on behalf of a proposed class made up of the
Defendants' current and former sales and financial
representatives, who work or worked at any office within SFBAG's
direction.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have for four years
preceding the filing of the complaint, systematically denied its
employees the basic minimum wage and overtime compensation to
which they are entitled under applicable law.

Mr. Giannini, a resident of San Mateo County, California, is
formerly a sales and financial representative of Northwestern
Mutual.

Northwestern Mutual is a Wisconsin corporation doing business in
California.  SFBAG is a California corporation and is owned and
operated by their parent company, Northwestern Mutual.  Mr.
Goodenough is an employee or agent of SFBAG and Northwestern
Mutual.  Mr. Giannini cannot currently identify the true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants.

Northwestern Mutual removed the lawsuit on January 5, 2012, from
the Superior Court of the state of California, County of San
Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The Company argues that the removal is
proper because diversity of citizenship exists between one or more
members of the putative class and one or more defendants.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. No. 3:12-cv-00077 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Drexel A. Bradshaw, Esq.
          S. Clinton Woods, Esq.
          BRADSHAW & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          44 Montgomery Street, Thirty-eighth Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 433-4841
          E-mail: Drexel@bradshawassociates.com
                  cwoods@bradshawassociates.com

               - and -

          Andrew Dimitriou, Esq.
          DIMITRIOU & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 434-1144
          Facsimile: (415) 434-1155

The Defendants are represented by:

          Rebecca D. Eisen, Esq.
          Stephen L. Taeusch, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS& BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market Street, Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1126
          Telephone: (415) 442-1000
          Facsimile: (435) 442-1001
          E-mail: reisen@morganlewis.com
                  staeusch@morganlewis.com


POLYAIR INC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Flexfoil
-------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Keahey, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that
calling the product not suitable for southern heat, a Louisiana
company has filed a class action over FlexFoil, reflective
insulation that is designed to eliminate solar-generated heat
radiated through a roof, wall or under a floor.

Cabinets by Perrier Inc. filed suit against PolyAir Inc. on
Dec. 12 in federal court in New Orleans.

The plaintiff states that it had the FlexFoil radiant barrier
installed with a new roof in 2006.  According to the complaint,
the product deteriorated rapidly, well within its 15 year
warranty.

Cabinets by Perrier argues that the deterioration is due to the
heat in the southern United States.

In order to replace the defective FlexFoil, the entire roof had to
be taken off, a new insulation product installed and then the roof
replaced.

The class action is filed on behalf of all Louisiana residents who
purchased the FlexFoil for installation in a residential or
commercial business.

The plaintiff is asking the court for an award of damages, to
require Polyair to establish a periodic inspection program of the
FlexFoil system, an award of court costs, attorney's fees and
interest.

The lawsuit is filed by New Orleans attorneys Desmonde X. Bennett
and Todd R. Slack of Huber, Slack, Houghtaling, Pandit & Thomas,
LLP.  A jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Jane Triche Milazzo is assigned to the case.

Case No. 2:11-cv-03051


RESEARCH IN MOTION: Faces Class Action Over Discounted PlayBooks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bowling, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, reports that a Pine man
claims in a class-action lawsuit moved to federal court on Jan. 4
that a Canadian company defrauded him and other people who ordered
discounted BlackBerry PlayBooks.

Frank Saltpietro claims that Research In Motion LTD of Waterloo,
Ontario, and Globalware Solutions Inc. of Haverhill, Mass.,
accepted his $189 order for a 16-gigabyte PlayBook tablet computer
on Nov. 26 and sent him an e-mail confirming the order on Nov. 29,
but then canceled it on Nov. 30, claiming his order had been
flagged as a "high-risk transaction."

Attorneys for the companies and company spokespeople couldn't
immediately be reached for comment.

Mr. Saltpietro says he contacted his credit card company, which
confirmed that the order had gone through normally and then
canceled.  Research In Motion ignored his subsequent calls and an
e-mail asking for an explanation, the lawsuit says.

Mr. Saltpietro filed his lawsuit in December in Allegheny County
Common Pleas after learning the company had used various excuses
to cancel other orders of the discounted PlayBooks and was now
saying that customers could only order the tablets at their
regular prices.

Ron Backer, one of the attorneys representing Mr. Saltpietro, said
the companies violated fair trade laws by using the lower prices
to lure people into making orders and then canceling the sales
while offering the same product at a higher price.

"They didn't say they didn't have it in stock," he said.  "They
came up with other excuses."

It's similar to a store offering a $300 television for $100 and
then telling customers who show up that it already sold the five
TVs it had marked at that price, Mr. Backer said.

"It's a come-on to try to lure people to the store with something
you really don't have," he said.  "I think the same thing applies
to the Internet."

In this case, "it's also a clear breach of contract," he said.
"They took the order, confirmed the order and then came up with an
excuse to not go through with the order."


SAFEWAY INC: Sued Over False Advertising on Clover Honey Product
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Safeway
should not be allowed to sell its honey as "honey" in California
"because it has had its natural pollen unnecessarily removed."

A copy of the Complaint in Strobridge v. Safeway Inc., Case No.
RG12611078 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/06/Pollen.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq.
          KIESEL BOUCHER LARSON LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Telephone: (800) 356-9898
          Facsimile: (310) 854-0812
          E-mail: kiesel@kbla.com

               - and -

          Paul O. Paradis, Esq.
          Gina M. Tufaro, Esq.
          Mark A. Butler, Esq.
          HORWITZ, HORWITZ & PARADIS
          570 7th Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 986-4500
          Facsimile: (212) 986-4501
          E-mail: pparadis@hhplawny.com
                  gtufaro@hhplawny.com
                  MButler@hhplawny.com


               - and -

          Robert I. Lax, Esq.
          LAX LLP
          380 Lexington Avenue, 31st Floor
          New York, NY 10168
          Telephone: (212) 818-9150
          Facsimile: (212) 818-1266

               - and -

          Joseph J.M. Lange, Esq.
          JOSEPH J.M. LANGE LAW CORPORATION
          222 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 2000
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 414-1880
          Facsimile: (310) 414-1882


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued Over Defective Galaxy S Smartphones
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aisling Swift, writing for Naples Daily News, reports that a
Bonita Springs attorney has filed a class-action lawsuit against
Samsung Electronics America, claiming its Galaxy S smartphones
have defects that make the cellphones worthless.

Kenneth Gilman, who purchased a Fascinate a year ago, alleges
Samsung's Galaxy S cellphones, including the Captivate, Fascinate,
Vibrant and Epic 4G, are plagued by defects Samsung concealed from
consumers, who never would have purchased them if they'd known.

Allie Weibring, a spokeswoman for Samsung, said the company
doesn't comment on current or pending litigation.

It's not the first class-action lawsuit involving the Galaxy S
smartphone.  But Mr. Gilman, who has won major product liability
cases against pharmaceutical giants, roof shingle and tire
manufacturers and others, said it has greater implications.  He
branded it part of a battle against increasingly weakening laws
that once protected consumers.

His lawsuit comes eight months after the U.S. Supreme Court handed
down a 5-4 ruling that may eliminate citizens' rights to band
together to file class-action lawsuits against large corporations.

That decision, involving AT&T Mobility, centers around cell phones
and a common contract that requires customers to settle claims
through arbitration, instead of lawsuits.  Such contracts, often
in fine print, are more often seen in employer agreements, but are
becoming increasingly common with companies offering cell phones,
credit cards, cable service, furnaces, water heaters, loans and
other products.

"That cuts off a person's rights," said Mr. Gilman, who also has
offices in Boston and Wareham, Mass.  "Now what they have done is
preclude you from going to court.  Companies can treat citizens
any way they please because there's nothing consumers can do about
it."

Kristian Kraszewski, his co-counsel, noted arbitration only
benefits major companies, whose lawyers can increase billable
hours.  But it will hurt plaintiffs, he said, because they can't
band together as a group.

"Who's going to take a case for $80?" Mr. Kraszewski asked.
"Nobody."

Still, Mr. Gilman believes he can win the arbitration argument,
which Samsung is using in a similar case.  In those court papers,
Samsung blames Verizon, denies there are defects, or that it knew
of them, although Verizon provided customers with an alert about
the Galaxy S problems.

Mr. Gilman's lawsuit, filed in December in U.S. District Court in
Fort Myers, also lists Samsung Telecommunications America as a
defendant and seeks at least $5 million for "thousands" of
consumers who purchased defective phones.

"Plaintiff has missed many phone calls, alerts, messages, emails
and alarms and otherwise lost the ability to access or save data
to his phone," the 14-page complaint alleges. " . . . Plaintiff
has experienced extreme frustration during his multiple attempts
to procure a working phone and the phone is worthless."

The lawsuit alleges that immediately after Mr. Gilman bought his
phone for "hundreds of dollars" in December 2010, he began
experiencing multiple problems, including the inability to shut
off calls; involuntary termination of calls; the screen would
become dark after three seconds, which rendered the phone
inoperable; the voicemail didn't work; the email didn't work; and
it automatically entered silent or airplane mode without any
prompting.

Mr. Gilman contends he gave Samsung and Verizon, its authorized
agent, "multiple opportunities" to inspect, repair or replace the
defective phone, but Samsung refused to replace it.

Galaxy S phones are the target of complaints on Internet forums
and law firm Web sites, which seek consumers to join class-action
lawsuits.

A class-action lawsuit in federal court in Massachusetts alleges
random shutdowns.  But in its pending motion to dismiss, Samsung
argues that the customer obtained a second phone from AT&T that
was defective and sued before asking Samsung to provide a "fully
functioning replacement" under her warranty.

Samsung branded the customer's complaint "purely economic," one
that could be remedied by repair or replacement -- without a
lawsuit.  It cited the AT&T Mobility case, arguing the lawsuit
against the company is prohibited.

Mr. Gilman's lawsuit asks a judge to determine whether the phones
are defectively designed, if Samsung intentionally concealed and
failed to disclose the defects, whether it breached its
warranties, whether its practices are deceptive, and if Mr. Gilman
and others in the class-action lawsuit are entitled to monetary
damages, including restitution or other remedies.

His lawsuit asks for a repair fund to be set up for consumers, for
Samsung to give up its profits due to its illegal or immoral acts
and to rescind the purchase of all the defective phones.

The three-count lawsuit seeks damages under breach of express
warranties, breach of implied warranties, and alleges a violation
of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

"Defendants' conduct has been illegal, immoral, unethical,
oppressive, or unconscionable, deceptive and attained a level of
rascality that would raise an eyebrow of someone inured to the
rough and tumble of the world of commerce," the lawsuit said,
citing what Mr. Gilman is required to prove to win.

He knows what he's up against because he's fought Samsung before
in a dynamic random access memory (DRAM) computer case involving
an international conspiracy to fix prices.  In 2005, the Korean
manufacturer pleaded guilty and was ordered to pay a $300 million
fine for price fixing.


SCIENCE APPLICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Data Theft
--------------------------------------------------------
Bob Brewin, writing for Nextgov, reports that TRICARE contractor
Science Applications International Corp. was hit with a second
class action lawsuit filed in a California state court seeking
unspecified monetary damages related to the theft of computer
tapes containing the records of 4.9 million health care
beneficiaries.

The latest suit seeks certification as a class action for all
TRICARE beneficiaries in California whose personal identity and
health care information were compromised by the theft of the
tapes, which occurred in September 2011 in San Antonio.  The suit
was filed in December on behalf of retired Marine Col. Mark Losack
in the Superior Court of California in San Diego by the law firms
of Robbins Umeda LLP and Blood Hurst, & O'Reardon LLP.

The complaint says that while it is difficult to estimate the
number of TRICARE beneficiaries in California whose personal
information was stored on the stolen tapes, "the proposed class
contains hundreds of thousands of members."

SAIC originally was sued over the data theft in a Texas state
court last October in a class action suit, which sought $4.9
billion in damages on the behalf of one plaintiff.  Richard
Coffman, the Beaumont, Texas, attorney who filed that suit said he
amended the complaint Dec. 13 to include an additional 13
plaintiffs from around the country.

TRICARE and the Defense Department, but not SAIC, were slammed
with a $4.9 billion lawsuit filed last October in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.

Mr. Losack, who served 32 years in the Marine Corps, including
during both Iraq wars, said he filed the suit because SAIC
transported the tapes in an unsecure fashion in an employee's
personal vehicle.

"I'm seriously confused by this," he said in an interview.
Mr. Losack, a chiropractor, said if he treated patient information
in such a cavalier fashion and it were stolen, his patients "would
come after me with all guns blazing."

He added that he was concerned about identity theft as a result of
the loss and said recent suspicious activity on his computers
indicates that personal information contained on the tapes is
being used to target him.  Mr. Losack said it is plausible that
the tapes already have been sold to overseas hackers.

Mr. Losack's suit alleges SAIC violated the California civil code
by "willfully, recklessly and/or negligently" failing to maintain
reasonable procedures to prevent unauthorized access to TRICARE
beneficiaries' personal information and for negligence in storing
and transporting the tapes.  It also alleges that SAIC failed to
promptly notify him of the theft as required by California law.

In addition to unspecified monetary damages, the Losack suit asks
SAIC to pay for credit monitoring services (TRICARE directed SAIC
to offer such service last November) and to identity theft
insurance for the class of people covered by the action.  It also
asked that SAIC submit to periodic compliance audits by a third
party of the steps it takes to ensure the security of consumer's
private information in its possession, custody and control.


SINO-FOREST: Koskie, Siskinds to Lead Investor Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Donville and Doug Alexander, writing for Bloomberg
News, reports that Koskie Minsky LLP and Siskinds LLP won approval
from an Ontario judge to lead an investor class-action lawsuit
against Sino-Forest Corp. and its executives, according to court
documents.

Ontario Superior Court Judge Paul Perell announced the decision
yesterday in a 57-page judgment.  Four firms competed to be the
lead counsel in a class action.

Sino-Forest, a China timber producer, dropped 74% in trading on
the Toronto Stock Exchange after Carson Block, a short seller,
said in June the company had overstated its forest plantation
assets.  The company, with C$1.8 billion in bonds outstanding, has
been suspended from share trading since August and denies the
allegations.

Richard Chandler, a billionaire investor whose investment company
owns 19% of Sino-Forest according to data compiled by Bloomberg,
said the timber company needs to change its chief executive
officer and appoint new directors.

The law firms are seeking damages on behalf of buyers of Sino-
Forest shares and bonds in both the primary and the secondary
markets, said Dimitri Lascaris -- dimitri.lascaris@siskinds.com --
a lawyer at Siskinds, on Jan. 7 by e-mail.

The firms expect to present a motion for certification of their
class-action suit within three months, said Kirk Baert --
kbaert@kmlaw.ca -- a lawyer at Koskie, in a telephone interview.

The case is trustees of the Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and
Eastern Canada v. Sino-Forest, 11-CV-431153CP, Superior Court of
Justice (Ontario).


SUCCESSFACTORS INC: Being Sold for Too Little, Calif. Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sanjay Israni, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lars Dalgaard, William H. Harris, Jr., William E.
McGlashan, Jr., Eric C.W. Dunn, Douglas J. Burgum, Elizabeth A.
Nelson, SuccessFactors, Inc., SAP America, Inc., and Saturn
Expansion Corporation, Case No. 3:12-cv-00076 (N.D. Calif.,
January 5, 2012) is brought on behalf of the public stockholders
of SuccessFactors against its Board of Directors for their
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and for their
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties arising out of their attempt
to sell the Company to a subsidiary of SAP AG, which was announced
on December 3, 2011.

The Proposed Transaction is unfair to SuccessFactors'
shareholders, does not offer them adequate consideration, was the
result of a flawed sales process, and is going to be effected
through the dissemination of a materially false and misleading
recommendation statement, Mr. Israni alleges.  He adds that the
Board members have breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to
the Proposed Transaction for inadequate consideration.

Mr. Israni is a shareholder of SuccessFactors.

SuccessFactors, a Delaware corporation, is a provider of cloud-
based Business Execution Software, and delivers business
alignment, team execution, people performance, and learning
management solutions to organizations of all sizes across more
than 60 industries.  The Individual Defendants are officers and
directors of the Company.  SAP America, a Delaware corporation and
a subsidiary of SAP AG, makes enterprise application software.
Saturn is a Delaware corporation and is a subsidiary of SAP
America that was created for the purposes of effectuating the
Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
          Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
          Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
          Patrick H. Moran, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
          E-mail: gregorek@whafh.com
                  manifold@whafh.com
                  rickert@whafh.com
                  moran@whafh.com

               - and -

          Marc S. Henzel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARC S. HENZEL
          273 Montgomery Avenue, Suite 202
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 660-8000
          Facsimile: (610) 660-8080
          E-mail: mhenzel@henzellaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph Levi, Esq.
          Eric M. Andersen, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad Street, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: jlevi@zlk.com
                  eandersen@zlk.com


TRICARE MGMT: Faces Class Suit Over Sept. 2011 Data Disclosure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Palmer, H.P., by her stepmother and legal guardian,
Jessica Palmer, C.P., by her stepmother and legal guardian,
Jessica Palmer, C.P. III, by her stepmother and legal guardian,
Jessica Palmer, Shanna Hartman, Antionette Morelli and Claudia
Falubebres, On behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated v. Tricare Management Activity, Science Applications
International Corporation, United States Department of Defense and
Leon E. Panetta, in his Official Capacity as Secretary of
Department of Defense, Case No. 1:12-cv-00008 (D.D.C., January 4,
2012) seeks redress for the Defendants' alleged intentional,
willful and reckless violations of the privacy rights of more than
4.9 million individuals, who entrusted their private medical and
other personal information to the Defendants.  The Plaintiffs
contend that the Defendants betrayed that trust by failing to
properly safeguard this private information and by publicly
disclosing it in violation of numerous laws, including the federal
Administrative Procedures Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
California law, the common law and the federal Privacy Act of
1974.

On September 29, 2011, TRICARE publicly admitted that data
containing the most highly sensitive personal and intimate
information pertaining to 4.9 million of its members had been
unlawfully disclosed.  The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
flagrantly disregarded the Plaintiffs' privacy rights by
intentionally, willfully and recklessly failing to take the
necessary precautions required to safeguard their personal
identification information from unauthorized disclosure.

Ms. Palmer is the spouse of an Air Force officer.  Her minor
stepchildren, Plaintiffs "H.P.," "C.P." and "C.P. III," have
received insurance through TRICARE for their entire lives.  Ms.
Hartman is the spouse of a senior chief in the U.S. Navy.  Ms.
Morelli, a disabled Air Force veteran, and her family have lived
in and received medical treatment in San Antonio, Texas, since
1990.  Ms. Falubebres, a formerly enlisted member of the U.S. Army
and the wife of a retired Air Force veteran.  The Plaintiffs have
received insurance through TRICARE.

TRICARE is an agency within the Military Health System, the fully
integrated healthcare system of the DOD.  TRICARE provides health-
care coverage for medical services, medication, and dental care
for military personnel, families, retirees and their survivors.
DOD is an executive department of the federal government and is
entrusted with highly confidential and personal records of
millions of citizens, who serve the country, as well as their
families' records.  Mr. Panetta is the official responsible for
the proper execution and administration of all laws administered
by the DOD and for the control, direction, and management of the
DOD.  SAIC, a Delaware corporation, derives a substantial amount
of its revenue from DOD contracts.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
DOD contracts with and pays SAIC tens of millions of dollars per
year to provide data security services for TRICARE beneficiaries'
Confidential Information.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David S. Wachen, Esq.
          SHULMAN, ROGERS, GANDAL, PORDY & ECKER,P.A.
          12505 South Potomac Avenue, 6th Floor
          Potomac, MD 20854
          Telephone: (301) 231-0954
          Facsimile: (301) 230-2891
          E-mail: dwachen@shulmanrogers.com


TRIPLE EIGHT: Recalls 30,400 Bicycle Helmets for Children & Youth
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Triple Eight Distribution, Inc., of Port Washington, New York,
announced a voluntary recall of about 30,400 bicycle helmets for
children and youth.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Product testing demonstrated that these helmets do not comply with
CPSC safety standards for impact resistance.  Consumers could
suffer impact head injuries in a fall.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled items are multi-purpose helmets also sold for use as
bicycle helmets.  Little Tricky helmets are marketed for children
and youth, and feature a large Little Tricky logo on both sides of
the helmet.  They come in one size and in black, white, pink and
green.  Triple Eight S/M EPS Liner helmets feature a hard black
inner EPS foam liner and come in black, white, bone, blue and army
green.  Sector 9 S/M EPS Liner helmets feature the same EPS liner
and come in gray, white, black, blue and green.  Both the Triple
Eight and Sector 9 helmets have an interior label indicating the
size "S/M" for small/medium and a manufacture date indicated as
month/year (ex. APR/2011).  Only Triple Eight and Sector 9 size
"S/M" EPS Liner helmets are affected.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12082.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
bicycle and sports stores and other retailers nationwide and
online from August 2006 through November 2011 for about $40.

Consumers should stop using the product immediately and contact
Triple Eight for a full refund.  For additional information,
contact Triple Eight toll free at (888) 548-8518 between 9:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.triple8.com/


VEOLIA ENVIRONNEMENT: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC on Jan. 6 disclosed that it has filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Veolia
Environnement S.A. common stock who purchased shares between
February 5, 2008 and August 4, 2011, inclusive.  The lawsuit
alleges, among other things, that Veolia materially overstated its
financial results by engaging in improper accounting practices.
Further, the lawsuit alleges the Company lacked adequate internal
controls and was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
condition during the Class Period.  On August 4, 2011, Veolia
announced that its prior financial reports for fiscal years 2007-
2010 were overstated by at least EUR90 million due to fraud at the
Company's Marine Services business.

If you purchased Veolia common stock during the Class Period, you
have the legal right to petition the Court to be appointed a "lead
plaintiff."  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  Any
such request must satisfy certain criteria and be made no later
than February 27, 2012.  Any member of the purported class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.  If you are a Veolia investor and would like to discuss a
potential lead plaintiff appointment, or your rights and interests
with respect to the lawsuit, you may contact:

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
          Toll-Free Telephone: (888) 508-6832
          E-mail: mfistel@holzerlaw.com
                  mdees@holzerlaw.com

Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC -- http://www.holzerlaw.com-- is an
Atlanta, Georgia law firm that dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation.


WELLPOINT INC: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Demutualization
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fran Lysiak, writing for BestWeek, reports that an Indiana federal
judge has dismissed a class-action lawsuit against the former
Anthem Inc., now known as WellPoint Inc., based on the company's
conversion from a mutual insurer to a publicly traded company a
decade ago.

Tony Felts, a spokesman for Anthem, said the company is pleased
the court granted summary judgment in Anthem's favor and found the
plaintiffs' claims fail as a matter of law.  "Anthem strongly
believes that the demutualization was conducted properly and in a
manner that was fair, reasonable, and equitable to Anthem's former
members," Mr. Felts said in an e-mail.  "It was one of the most
closely reviewed transactions in Indiana history and was approved
by a special committee of Anthem's board of directors, the board
itself, and by government regulators."

The case, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, was filed by Jeffrey D. Jorling.

Anthem Insurance demutualized in 2001, two years after Indiana
adopted a new statutory scheme allowing an Indiana mutual company
to convert to a stock company through a plan of conversion, to be
approved by the state's insurance commissioner and two-thirds of
the company's membership.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt ruled the federal
Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 bars
Mr. Jorling's claims.  Mr. Jorling was not a holder of the
issuer's equity securities, and Anthem's demutualization didn't
contain a step where securities were traded for cash, policy
credit, or other shares, she ruled.

A second case related to Anthem's demutualization is scheduled for
trial in June.  Mr. Jorling's suit was a companion to this suit
pending before the court since 2005, called Mary E. Ormond v.
Anthem Inc. and Anthem Insurance, according to the ruling.

"The main difference between the two lawsuits is the type of
compensation received by the former mutual members," Judge Pratt
wrote.  "The Ormond plaintiffs received cash; by contrast, Jeffrey
Jorling and the proposed class received stock."

However, "the crux of the two lawsuits is the same: plaintiffs
allege they were inadequately compensated for their ownership
interests in Anthem."

Last July, the court issued a summary judgment ruling in the
Ormond case, allowing the plaintiffs' claims for breach of duty
related to the pricing and sizing of the IPO to survive for trial.

"The court previously entered summary judgment for Anthem on most
of plaintiffs' claims in the Ormond case," Mr. Felts said.
"Anthem believes that its conduct during the demutualization, as
reviewed and approved by the Indiana Department of Insurance,
complied with Indiana's demutualization statute.

"Anthem will continue to vigorously defend against the remaining
allegations in this case."

In late 2004, the merger of Anthem Inc. and the California-based
WellPoint Health Networks Inc. was completed, forming the new
company WellPoint Inc., the nation's largest health insurer based
on membership.  Anthem, the corporate parent, was renamed
WellPoint n the $16.5 billion merger, which was made official more
than a year after the agreement first was announced on Oct. 27,
2003.  The merger agreement called for WellPoint Health Networks'
stockholders to receive $23.80 in cash and one share of Anthem
common stock for each share of WellPoint Health Networks (Best's
News Service, Dec. 1, 2004).

On Jan. 6, the Indianapolis-based WellPoint is the Blue Cross or
Blue Cross and Blue Shield company in 14 states.

According to the ruling, the conversion plan required the total
amount of consideration distributed to eligible members be equal
to the "fair value" of Anthem at the time of the conversion.  An
eligible member could receive either cash or common stock in
Anthem Inc.  If an eligible member didn't designate a preference,
they received cash as the default option.  The total amount of
consideration to be paid to all eligible members was to be equal
in value to 100 million shares of the common stock of Anthem Inc.
offered through the IPO, regardless of the number of shares
actually offered for sale.

Anthem Insurance Cos. Inc. currently has a Best's Financial
Strength Rating of A (Excellent).  California-based Anthem Blue
Cross Life and Health Insurance Co., also currently has a Best's
Financial Strength Rating of A (Excellent).

     
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Sued Over Mislabeled Maytag Washing Machine
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Whirlpool, Lowe's and Sears misrepresent the Maytag Centennial
washing machine as "Energy Star" compliant.

A copy of the Complaint in Dzielak, et al. v. Whirlpool
Corporation, et al., Case No. 12-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 13809
in Case No. 33-av-00001 on Jan. 5, 2012 (D. N.J.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/06/NoStar.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744

               - and -

          Antonio Vozzolo, Esq.
          Christopher Marlborough, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: avozzolo@faruqilaw.com
                  cmarlborough@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 989-9113
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com
                  jmarchese@bursor.com


                           *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne Lopez, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and
Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2012.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.





                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *